In order to improve the quality of systematic researches, various tools have been developed by well-known scientific institutes sporadically. Dr. Nader Ale Ebrahim has collected these sporadic tools under one roof in a collection named “Research Tool Box”. The toolbox contains over 720 tools so far, classified in 4 main categories: Literature-review, Writing a paper, Targeting suitable journals, as well as Enhancing visibility and impact factor.

A systematic analysis of duplicate records in Scopus

Highlights

We perform a systematic analysis of the problem of duplicate records in Scopus.

•

In the seven journals included in the analysis, 12.4% of the records are duplicates.

•

Most duplicate records are due to orthographic differences in journal titles.

•

Journal name changes and title variations also play a role.

Abstract

In recent years, the Web of Science Core Collection and Scopus
databases have become primary sources for conducting studies that
evaluate scientific investigations. Such studies require that duplicate
records be excluded to avoid errors of overrepresentation. In this line,
we identify duplicate records in Scopus and examine their origins. Identifying journals with duplicate records in Scopus,
selecting and downloading bibliographic journal records, and
identifying and analyzing the duplicate records is the methodology
adopted. Duplicate records are found when articles published in a
journal are incorrectly mapped by Scopus to this journal and to
a different journal from the same publisher and when there are journal
title changes, orthographic differences in the presentation of a journal
name, and journal name variants. In these last three cases, one
bibliographic record of each duplicate is mapped to Medline coverage of Scopus. Consequently, the identified duplicates and the significant differences in the number of citations
received in duplicate articles may influence bibliometric studies.
Thus, there is a need for rigorous quality control guidelines to govern
database managers and editors to prevent the creation of duplicates.

Due
to differences in citation practices amongst scientific disciplines,
existing research on a possible open access citation advantage remains
limited. A new study seeks to overcome these limitations by
investigating whether there is a possible OA citation advantage across
all fields. Lars Kullman
presents his findings on cross-field citation comparisons between OA
and non-OA articles from the Chalmers University of Technology
self-archive repository. The results indicate an advantage. The OA
articles studied in this paper have a 22% higher field normalized
citation rate than the non-OA articles.

Here is the thing. Citations have become an obsession within the
research community. And even though researchers, university
administrators, research councils and journal editors probably all agree
that citations by no means is a perfect and objective way of measuring
research quality, the system is nevertheless very much practical and
quite successful. Open Access (OA) is not about citations, nor is it
about evaluating and measuring research. OA is about making knowledge
freely available to researchers, teachers, students and the public
around the world.

Why then care about citations rates on OA articles? Because citations
are a language that researchers and university management understand.
The assumption that open access leads to increased citations is widely
spread among OA proponents. And proponents of this view have tended to
be both passionate and argumentative. But what does it look like at
Chalmers University of Technology?

Research on whether OA articles receive more citations than non-OA
articles officially traces its origins back to 2001 when Steve Lawrence
first published a paper indicating an OA citation advantage in the field of Computer Science.
Since then numerous of studies have been made on the subject. The
explanations from previous studies of an OA citation advantage can be
summarized as: (1) A general OA advantage: more scholars have access to
papers and these therefore receive more citations. (2) An early
advantage: the earlier a paper is made available, the earlier it can
start accumulating citations. (3) A selection bias / quality advantage:
authors choose to self-archive their best papers, and better papers
attract more citations.

Existing research on a possible OA citation advantage has used
various different data sources and methodological approaches. Most
studies have, however, compared citations to OA and non-OA papers
published in the same journal or in a set of journals within a specific
research field. This has been argued to be necessary due to differences
in citation practice between scientific disciplines.

An alternative approach could be to use citation-based bibliometric
indicators that normalize for such differences and thus allow meaningful
cross-disciplinary comparisons of citation impact. Studies on a
possible OA citation advantage utilizing field normalized citation data
seem to be lacking, but could make an important contribution to this
research as they are not limited to comparing likes with likes.

In this study, field normalized citation scores were combined with data on self-archiving from the university repository, Chalmers Publication Library (CPL), allowing for cross-field citation comparisons between OA and non-OA articles from Chalmers research publication output.

A
density view of the subject fields in which Chalmers researchers
publish showing the variety of subjects. The size of the text and the
color of the cluster indicates size of the subject (more red = more
publications).

In the study, ‘self-archived paper’ was used as a synonym to ‘OA
article’, here defined as a full-text version of a paper freely
available in CPL. No distinction was made between published articles
(copies edited by the publisher) or final, i.e. accepted manuscripts.

In order to calculate mean normalized citation scores (MNCS),
bibliographical data from CPL were matched with field normalized
citation data from the Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS)
of Leiden University. The analysis from CWTS is based on the Web of
Science data. In total, 3470 articles, published 2010-2012, were matched
and out of those 899 were OA.

Indicators Used

The study set out to investigate whether there is a possible OA
citation advantage across all fields covered by articles published by
Chalmers researchers. The results agree with many of the previous
studies indicating such an advantage. The OA articles studied in this
paper have a 22% higher field normalized citation rate than the non-OA
articles, and the difference is statistically significant. There was a
significant difference between the two groups when using field
normalized data but not when using raw citations, which illustrates the
importance of using field normalized citation data in this case.

Results

What difference does it make if Chalmers articles have a field
normalized citation rate of 1,23 compared to 1,01? To put it into a
university rankings perspective it would make a difference of about 100
positions in THE World University Rankings for Chalmers.

It is said that it takes just one ugly fact to ruin a beautiful
hypothesis, and the results from this study, with a high share of OA
articles in e.g. the field of Astrophysics, points to the direction that
these papers might also be published in arXiv as pre-prints. The
logical assumption would be that papers published ahead of print have a
longer window to gather citations and therefore will be cited more than
papers not published as pre-prints. This early bias is also suggested to
be the explanation to the OA citation advantage. An investigation of
this was beyond the scope of this paper, but of course an interesting
topic for future studies.

The observed increase in citation rate for OA papers could arguably
be caused by a self-selection bias, i.e. that authors choose to
self-archive their best papers, rather than the OA availability per se. Chalmers has an OA mandate, but as the compliance level is only 25 %, a self-selection bias cannot be ruled out.

Whilst this study has focused on the publications from just one
university, a second theoretical contribution is that this study gives
an example how make between field comparisons on the possible OA
citation advantage using field-normalized citation data.

Note: This article gives the views of the authors, and not the
position of the Impact of Social Science blog, nor of the London School
of Economics. Please review our Comments Policy if you have any concerns on posting a comment below.

About the Author

Lars Kullmanworks with open access,
bibliometrics and university rankingsat Chalmers University of
Technology. Besides advocating and promoting Open Access at Chalmers he
has also been engaged in various Open Access projects on national
level.

Research on social media and the open web

Many academic researchers or research groups use social media to
alert their colleagues to research developments; or share information
using scholarly communities on the web. These sites can be a valuable
way of keeping up to date. Twitter, blogs, email lists or discussion
groups and online scholarly communities are some of the ways in which
you can 'keep up to date'.

The London School of Economics' Impact of Social Sciences blog is an example of a group using twitter to alert 'followers' to new blog content and to promote discussion.

Anatomy of a tweet

Using blogs

You can subscribe to blogs that have
been created by indiviuals or groups who 'post' items for information or
discussion. Research groups, individual researchers, media outlets
and professional orgnaisations are some possible 'bloggers'. Readers
who subscribe to a blog can post their responses.

Networks or communities of scholars

Networks or Communities of Scholars can be broad and global in scale, such as Arxiv or SSRN, or more nationally or locally focussed, such as the Centre for Entrepreneurial Management and Innovation (CEMI). These communities can be hosted and operate on web sites, blogs or email (discussion) lists.

Finding an online community of fellow researchers can be a valuable
way of hearing about developments in your subject area and exchanging
ideas. You can usually subscribe to these communities using RSS and many use Twitter to alert followers to new posts or articles.

Publication and citation
counts are increasingly used to measure the impact of scholarly
research. Institutions and government agencies are using metrics related
to publication and citation numbers to evaluate and rank research
output and research impact of researchers, research institutes and even
of a country.

While it is good to have
some way to measure research performance and evaluate your research, it
is also important to note the following:

Measuring research impact through citation counts is just ONE quantitative indicatorThere
are other quantitative and qualitative approaches to measuring research
and they should be used collectively to obtain a holistic view of the
research and its impact. Citation counts and related citation metrics is
just ONE quantitative indicator of research performance.

Citation patterns differ between subject disciplinesCitation metrics should not be compared across disciplines as citation patterns differ between subject disciplines.

Citation databases are not completeThe
different citation databases cover different journals and in totality,
they do not cover the world’s entire scientific and scholarly output.
There are many publications not captured in these citation databases.
Hence, the results from the citation databases are not comprehensive and
should not be compared.

Here are some metrics used to measure the research impact of researchers:

Number of publicationsThis
refers to the total number of publications a researcher has published
in the researcher’s lifetime or within a defined period of time (e.g.
last five years).This number is often used as an indicator of the researcher’s productivity.

Number of citations received from publicationsThis
refers to the total number of times a researcher’s work has been cited
by other research publications. The publications can be based on the
entire collection of published work by a researcher or the publications
within a defined period (e.g. last five years). This number is often
used as an indicator to measure the quality of research. The assumption
is that the greater the impact of the research, the more citation it
will receive.

h-indexh-index is a number used to measure the productivity and influence of a researcher.Definition of h-index: a researcher with an index of h has published h papers, each of which has been cited at least h times.(i.e. A researcher with an index of 5 has published 5 papers, each of which has been cited at least 5 times.)

Here are some metrics you can use to rank the journals by measuring the impact of these journals:

Journal Impact FactorThe
Impact Factor (IF) of a journal is the average number of times articles
from the journal published in the past two years have been cited in the
Journal Citation Report* Year.

i.e.
If Journal A has an impact factor of 5, on average, the articles
published in Journal A within the last 2 years have been cited 5 times.

Hence,
publications in journals with higher IF may have higher chances of
being cited as compared to publications published in journals with
relatively lower IF.Researchers often use IF to help them decide where they should publish their research. It
is important to note that IF measures the impact of a journal and does
not measure the researchers publishing in the journal. Institutions
often use IF as an indication to evaluate their researchers on the
assumption that papers published in these journals of high IF are of
higher quality and have higher chances of being cited.

5-year Impact FactorThe
5-year IF is the average number of times articles from a journal
published in the last five years have been cited in the JCR year (as
compared to the last 2 years for IF).The
5-year IF may be more appropriate for subject disciplines where it may
take longer than two years to disseminate and respond to published works
(e.g. Arts and Humanities). The 5-year IF is also good for the
researchers to see how citation patterns of the journal changes over a
longer period of time.

Cited half-lifeThis refers to the median age of the articles that were cited in the JCR year. E.g.
The Cited Half-Life of Journal A in 2011 is 7.4. This means that it
takes 7.4 years for the papers published in Journal A in the year 2011
to reach 50% of their total lifetime citations.The Cited-Half Life
shows if the journal has a good track record and shows how long content
in the journal is still being referred to after publication.

Immediacy IndexImmediacy Index refers to the number of times a paper published in a year is cited within that same year.E.g.
Immediacy Index of Journal A is 2.24. This means that the papers
Journal A published in the year 2011 were cited, on average, 2.24 times
in 2011.

*Journal Citation Report (JCR)is
available via Web of Knowledge. JCR lets you search across the Science
or Social Sciences Edition to obtain journal information based on
citation data. More details here.

Social
media outlets are becoming essential for academia, not just for the
promotion of research but for research development as well. Andy Miah
provides an overview of his top picks for the social media newbie and
argues that if used well, these platforms will allow academics to digest
more content, more quickly. We must figure out how to use social media
in a way that enriches academic working life, but in a way that also
provides some added value.

In December 2012, the LSE held an event
about the future of academic impact. One chunk of the discussion was
dedicated to social media and it made me think about what researchers
should be doing today, to prepare for tomorrow. While a lot of the
conversation was about how social media can promote research impact, I also want to claim that social media is fast becoming a primary vehicle of research development.
In so doing, this brief essay offers an overview of where we might need
to focus our attention in the rapidly expanding world of social media.

Image credit: Jason Howie (CC BY)

These days, I receive more invitations to speak and collaborate via Facebook & LinkedIn
today than I do by email. I’d even go as far as to say that email is
moribund. I mean, really, who has time to read all the emails they
receive, let alone reply to them? I find more resources through Pinterest and Google Scholar than I do via my library. I meet more people with whom I share common research interests through Twitter than I ever did at academic conferences. I co-author and edit university documents in Google Drive
saving hours of time spent sharing versions of drafts, sometimes
working in real time on one document with over 10 people. I am also one
of those people who has switched from Endnote to Mendeley,
preferring the convenience of a multi-platform application, which I can
install onto my home machines as well, without having to go through
university IT.

What about journals or conferences, I hear you ask? Are these not
still primary vehicles of research development? Certainly, they remain
important, but the point is that they are each increasingly being
delivered by social media as well. Furthermore, we can digest a lot more
content because of these platforms, if we use them well. I no longer
visit journal websites or bother with email alerts about new issues.
Instead, the RSS feeds of journals go straight into my social media
environments, as soon as they are published. The content comes to me,
saving hours of search time.

So what is next for the social media newbie? The first thing to
realise is that there is no single way of doing this well. We each have
to figure out how to use social media in a way that enriches our working
life, but in a way that also provides some added value. That said,
there are some smart principles worth adopting. Setting up an ongoing
‘future media’ working group in your School will help you keep abreast
of what’s hot and what’s not. So will joining the ‘Social Media News’ list on jiscmail, which I set up just for this purpose.

We had 350 members subscribe within the first month. And who says
email is dead?Understanding which virtual worlds your peer community and
audience inhabit is also crucial. However, by far, the most important
thing is just getting out there. Experience shows that social media is
one of those things that requires practice to really understand why it
matters. Or, more accurately, once you start using it, you will begin to
discover the value,

This doesn’t mean that all academics need to tweet or use Facebook to
benefit from social media. However, with more publishers, research, and
peers occupying these places, deciding to opt out of social media is
akin to opting out of email in the 1990s. If you really don’t know where
to start, then the following platforms would put you in a good position
to expand your reach.

Twitter – Don’t just follow people, curate your own thematic lists and follow hashtags to get the most out of this, start with #loveHE

LinkedIn – if you don’t have a website, this social CV space is also quickly replacing discussion groups.

Google Scholar – Set up an author profile to track your citations and receive alerts whenever your work is cited.

YouTube
– 2013 is the year of video, so no top 5 would be complete without some
video platform. There are many others now – and micro video-blogging on
such platforms as Tout and Vine are worth keeping an eye on, but
YouTube remains a good place to start.

Note: This article gives the views of the author, and not the
position of the Impact of Social Science blog, nor of the London School
of Economics. Please review our Comments Policy if you have any concerns on posting a comment below.

About the Author

Professor Andy Miah (@andymiah) is
Director of the Creative Futures Institute and Chair of Ethics and
Emerging Technologies in the Faculty of Business & Creative
Industries at the University of the West of Scotland. He is Global
Director for the Centre for Policy and Emerging Technologies, Fellow of
the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies and Fellow of FACT,
Liverpool.

Thing 06: Managing your online research networks

This week, 23 Research Things takes
a look at online research networks, such as Academia.edu, Research Gate
and LinkedIn. Thing 06 has been written by Mary Stone, Liaison
Librarian (Culture & Communication) and members of the Baillieu
Library Liaison Team.

Researchers have more options than ever
before for connecting with others, whether in the academic community or
more broadly. This week we look at some of the most commonly-used online
research networks.

Getting started

Academia.edu

Academia’s stated mission
is ‘to build a completely new system for scientists to share their
results, one that is totally independent of the current journal system’.
But it’s not just for scientists. Registered users from all disciplines
can create a profile in which they identify their ‘research interests’
and use these to follow other users and ‘tag’ their uploaded papers. You
can also follow the profiles of other scholars, which is useful to keep
up to date with people’s publications. Academia.edu can be especially
useful for research students. Not all universities provide their
higher-degree students with online profiles, while many other researcher
databases rely on publications as a way of constructing a profile. The
simplicity and flexibility of Academia.edu allows you to create posts on
your general research activities and upload ‘grey’ literature such as
conference papers, reviews or opinion pieces. This is useful for all
researchers but perhaps particularly valuable for those at the start of
their careers. Academia.edu also includes some analytics tools, which
can also tell you how many people have viewed your profile, where they
are from, what keywords they used to find you (though Google’s
encryption settings are now reducing the effectiveness of this), and who
is following your own work.

LinkedIn

LinkedIn describes itself
as ‘the world’s largest professional network’. Its aim is to ‘connect
the world’s professionals to make them more productive and successful’.
LinkedIn users create a professional profile and connect with others
working in the same or a related field. They can also ‘follow’
individual researchers or universities/departments. As LinkedIn is aimed
professionals in any line of work, it allows you to interact with other
users outside of the confines of academia and often with a more
employment-focused slant. Users can identify their own skills and
strengths, and other users can elect to ‘endorse’ these, though it’s
worth reading John Naughton’s critique of this in The Observer (Naughton, 2012).

Research Gate

ResearchGate
was ‘built by scientists, for scientists’, but it now includes
researchers from a broad range of disciplines (though the sciences are
still strongly represented). It has 4 million users and is very research
focused.

Mendeley

Mendeley
is a free reference management tool and we will be looking at this
aspect of Mendeley in a later post. However, it also incorporates a profile function
that can help you organise your own research, collaborate with others
online and discover the latest publications. It interfaces with
Facebook, and you can sync your Mendeley library to your iPhone, iPad or
iPod Touch.

Google Scholar Citations

Google Scholar Citations
primarily helps researchers to monitor who is citing their work. There
is also an option to publish a ‘user profile’ page. This appears at the
top of a Google search for a researcher’s name and shows a list of
publications and co-authors. It also includes options to follow an
author’s articles or citations.

Considerations and risks

Security and confidentiality

The usual cautions about disclosure of
personal information on social networking sites apply equally here: only
publish information that you are happy for people to know. The
University of Melbourne has its own useful Social Media Guidelines.

Always check the user agreements. It’s
important to know who will have access to your data, how long it will be
retained and how easy it is to delete an account.

Copyright

If you have published a paper, you should
check the journal’s copyright conditions before uploading it. In 2013,
the publisher Elsevier issued take-down notices to Academia.edu when it
found that some researchers had uploaded papers in breach of their
copyright agreements (see Holcome, 2013 listed in the ‘Further reading’ below).

Many publishers allow researchers free
use of the ‘author’s original manuscript’ or ‘author’s accepted
manuscript’, but it is important to check any agreement you sign. You
must only share material in which you own copyright, or have the
appropriate rights to do so. While there are limited provisions under
copyright law for material to be shared online, sharing copyright
material through these services without explicit or implicit permission
from the copyright owner may infringe their copyright.

Time

All of these tools can be useful, but they can also take up a lot of time. Some researchers estimate that it takes 15 to 45 minutes a week per tool to maintain a useful online profile. Is it better to have no profile at all than an out-of-date one?

Some of the best ‘networking’ is
completely unplanned; none of these should replace tried-and-true
networking options such as conferences, chats in the corridor and coffee
breaks.

Try this

LinkedIn

Create an account on LinkedIn (you can always delete it later) and look at some examples of particularly active users. Sean Cubitt,
Professor of Film and Television at Goldsmiths, University of London is
a good example, but there are many others (see Foote, 2013).

Academia.edu

Check out the profile of Richard Price,
the founder of Academia.edu for a very thorough profile. See if you can
find any of your colleagues and researchers working in your area.

It’s worth setting up a full profile on
one of these sites (or both, if you’re keen!), if you don’t already have
one. Both tend to rank very highly in Google searches, and will make
you and your research more visible online. Building an online profile is
as much about ‘pulling’ people to your content as well as ‘pushing’
information out there, and about active participation. A completely
static profile might never be viewed or followed up. If you’ve already
set up a profile on these platforms, you might want to focus on this:
how many ‘hits’ are you getting and how much interaction do you have
with others? Spend a few minutes thinking about the kind of people it
would be useful to connect with and why. Both platforms are able to find
contacts from other accounts: for example your email, Facebook or
Twitter accounts but be sure that you want to link these accounts!
Decide who you want to connect with, but take it a step further and see
what issues or goals you might want to contact them about, and send a
message or ask a question.

Reflection and integration into practice

All of these tools provide networking
opportunities and allow you and your work to be seen by a wider
audience. There are pros and cons for each, so it’s worth doing some
research before committing to any one tool.

Julia Gross and Natacha Suttor of Edith Cowan University in Perth have provided a good overview of different online research networks (Gross and Suttor, 2013). They conclude with the following salient advice:

Make effective decisions about the
platform(s) you adopt, based on who you want to connect with and what
you want to do on the platform. No platform is mutually exclusive:
each has different strengths and each has different user demographics.
‘Find your audience where they naturally occur.’

Do you have
an online research profile and, if so, how useful has it been? As a PhD
student, I don’t (yet) have an extensive publishing record that would
make for an impressive online profile, but I have found Academia.edu to
be extremely useful for making contacts with other researchers in my
area. Many users post unpublished conference papers or pre-print journal
articles, providing early or unique access to new research and ideas.
It also ranks high in Google searches, so the papers that I have
uploaded (either in full—with relevant permissions—or as abstracts) get
regular hits and from a diverse audience: who knew so many people were
interested in portraits of Luigi Boccherini?! My
supervisor also finds that an Academia.edu ‘hit’ is often followed by
an email from someone—another academic or an interested member of the
public—with a query about his research, which then may lead on to other
research opportunities. Are you using any of the above profile
platforms? Are there others that you would recommend?

What’s the point of academic social media?

What exactly are academic social media? Academic social media are
social media networks aimed primarily at academics and researchers. In
addition to the usual functions of social media – connecting and
communicating with peers and sharing and discovering information – they
also offer the ability to document and share your publications. As such
they function as informal repositories for their members.

ResearchGate and Academia.edu

The two best known academic social media are ResearchGate and Academia.edu.
These two are also The Connected Leiden Researcher's focus for August.
While both networks offer roughly the same features, the difference
between them is one of emphasis. ResearchGate is more closely focused on
collaboration and interaction, while Academia.edu often functions more
as an academic version of LinkedIn, with an online CV a.k.a. a
bibliography in the case of academics and as a place to share your
publications. You can find a closer examination of both of these
networks in the In Depth section.

Other networks

Of course there are more networks than just ResearchGate and
Academia.edu. Most of these however are more narrowly focused, for
example MyScienceWork seems to be more oriented towards the Sciences, Labroots for the Life Sciences, or BiomedExperts for the biomedical sciences. Connected Researchers offers an overview of different social networks for academics.

What is their benefit?

Academic social media allow you to connect to other researchers in your
field, share your publications and datasets, get feedback on your
non-peer-reviewed work, and to stay current with news and events in your
field of interest. It gives you another place to establish your name
and research and perhaps even collaborate with others.

Academic social media and impact?

Academic social media tie into altmetrics mostly indirectly, through
making your work more widely discoverable and, if you've uploaded a
copy, more easily available. They also provide an additional source for
impact data by tracking the number of views and downloads your uploaded
papers get. ResearchGate has developed its own additional metric called
the RG Score,
which isn't just based on your contributions (papers, Q&A's, data
sets, negative results), but also on your interaction with others on the
site; this means that who looks at your research is as important as how
many people look at your research. The RG Score and the other data
aren't automatically incorporated in the altmetric aggregators such as
altmetric.com and Plum Analytics.

Sharing and promoting your article

Promote your article

Now that your article is published, you
can promote it to make a bigger impact with your research. Sharing
research, accomplishments and ambitions with a wider audience makes you
more visible in your field. This helps you get cited more, enabling you
to cultivate a stronger reputation, promote your research and move
forward in your career.

Share your article

Sharing research is an important part of the research process. This simple guide will help you share your research broadly.

Share Link

To help you reach more readers, Elsevier will send you a Share Link
when your article is published: a personal, customized short link that
provides free access to your article for 50 days. This means you can
invite colleagues and peers to access your article on ScienceDirect,
sharing it by email and social media. Readers who click
on the Share Link will be taken directly to your article, with no
sign up or registration required.

50 days’ free access to the html and PDF versions of your article

Sharing the link via social media accounts and email helps you generate interest in your article

The process is simple: just click on the link during the 50-day free access period

You
will automatically receive the Share Link at the final citable
publication stage of your article. If several authors are listed, the
named corresponding author will receive the Share Link, which can then
be shared with co-authors.

Offprints

Offprints are an exact copy of the
article published in either paper or digital (PDF) form. A few journals
still offer offprints, but Share Links will soon replace them.

Ordering offprintsYou
will automatically receive an Offprint Order Form when your paper is
accepted. If several authors are listed, the named corresponding author
will receive the request form. The corresponding author must compile
requests from all contributing authors into a single
order. You can order paper offprints when you receive the Offprint
Order Form. If your journal does not offer paper offprints as standard,
you will need to pay a small fee. After you return the order form,
please allow 30-60 days for delivery of paper offprints, dependent on
local postal services. You
can check the dispatch date using the track your article tool.

After publication, you can order paper offprints via the WebShop.
You can order 50 to 250 offprints, in increments of 50, on high-quality
glossy paper with optional covers. If you are ordering paper offprints
on behalf of a corporation or institution, please contact reprints@elsevier.com.

We
publish under a CC-BY license, which gives you the maximum freedom to
share your work. See below for a list of ways that you can utilize to
ensure everyone who needs to, sees your work.

Consider your title and keywords carefully

Research
has suggested that shorter titles increase readership. Try to keep your
title concise - imagine that a potential reader is searching through a
large number of publications trying to find manuscripts of relevance to
read. They're more likely to notice your article if the content is
immediately clear from the title.

In
addition, consider your keywords carefully. These are used to ensure
your article is shown for various searches. You should therefore
consider what keywords you would use to search when seeking articles in
this topic area, and ensure you use those. You should also ensure your
title and abstract include these keywords.

Enhance your article on Kudos

Future Science OA and its sister journals are partnered with Kudos.
This is a service paid for by us and free to you, that helps you
enhance your article and view its impact. By adding pertinent
information to your article, you can help its visibility in search
engines and help others understand your work. You can also see a
dashboard that helps you monitor how your work is performing.

Sending your article to your peers

You
are free to share your work with your colleagues and peers. We suggest
you send them the link to your article, so you can continue to track how
many times your article has been accessed from our website, an update
coming soon.

Tell your press office

Many
institutions have press offices; why not let them know about your
article? The lay abstract you write will ensure they can write a release
that will be clear to the non-expert audience.

Use social media

We see much higher readership numbers for articles where the authors have utilized social media. The impact is visible - Future Science OA and its sister journals havepartnered
with Altmetric, a platform that measures online discussino surrounding
articles. You can view the Altmetric score for your article by opening
the HTML version of your article through our website, and viewing the
Altmetric score in the top right corner.

There
are a variety of different platforms you can use to maximise your
article's impact, which are explained in detail below. If you have any
queries about how to use social media, feel free to contact the Editor.

Twitter

Future Science OA will tweet about your article, including a picture if you have chosen one suitable for sharing. Follow @fsgfso and retweet to your colleagues and peers.

If
you want to post about your article yourself, make sure you use
hashtags, as this improves searches for your tweet. For example, if your
article discusses something oncology based, ensure you include #cancer
in your tweet.

Linkedin, Pinterest and Facebook

Future Science OA will post about your article in suitable Linkedin groups. Connect with the Editor to
see when and where your article is posted. Feel free to post about your
article yourself in relevant groups and on your personal feed.

We will also post about your article on Facebook and Pinterest. Like our page here (Facebook) and here (Pinterest) to ensure you see the post and are able to share it.

Discuss your article online

Opening
your article up to online discussion is a great way to increase its
impact and see what your peers are saying, so why not blog about it?
There are a number of places you can do this online, and Future Science
Group publishes a range of free-to-use websites on which you can do
this, covering bioanalysis, oncology, regenerative medicine,
epigenetics, neurology, medical chemistry, and more. You can view those
sites here.
In addition, why not write an accompanying Editorial? If you would like
to submit an accompanying Editorial for your work, please do get in touch.

Posting your work on websites

Your
article will be published under a CC-BY license, and thus you are free
to post and share it on any websites. This includes your institutional
and personal pages, along with sharing sites such as Mendeley,
ResearchGate and Impactstory.

Search This Blog

About Me

Nader Ale Ebrahim has
a Technology Management PhD degree from the Department of Engineering
Design and Manufacture, Faculty of Engineering, University of Malaya
(UM), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. He holds a Master of Science in the
mechanical engineering from University of Tehran, Iran.